The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1887-11-29

Salary of her Clerk. 500
Total. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS $3.50. Sll 600
In addition to which there was appropri-
ate1 $500 for incidentals for the offices dur
ing the biennial periods, thus bringing the
total expense to within trife of $4,000 an
uually, or $1,000 per month.
Therefore, your committee submit that on
the score of economy alone, even with other
reasons wanting, this Office should be abol-
lshed, and We therefore recommend that the
bill submitted for our consideration, entitled
An Act to abolish the Office of Governor"
do pass without amendment.
Your committee would also respectfully
commend to the consideration of your hon
orable body the answers rendered by His
EXcellency the Governor of Oahu to certain
questions submitted to him by your commit
tee, which questions and answers are hereto
appended and marked Exhibit A.
Respectfully submitted,
G. w. ASHFORD, Chairman.
G. BERTELMANN,
d. II. HITCHCOCK,
G. f. HoRNER,
Jos. q. KAwAINUI.
Rep. c. Brown moved the report be
laid on the table, to enable the inter-
prefer to translate it. Carried.
Noble Smith read majority report
of the special committee on the Inter-
nal Police Organization bill.
Minister Ashford read the minority
report of the committee.
Noble Smith moved that both re-
ports be laid on the table, to be taken
up in Committee of the Whole in the
afternoon. Carried.
Minister Ashford presented the re-
port of the select committee on the bill
TO amend Sections 913 and 922 of the
Civil Code, relating to the appoint
ment of District Justices.
Following is the report;
To the Hon. S. G. Wilder, President of the
Legislature-Sir: Your select committee to
whom was referred the pill entitled "An Act
10 amend Sections 913 and 500 of the Civil
Code,'' relating TO District Justices, beg
leave TO report that they have considered
said bill, and the law bearing upon the sub
ject of the appointment and occupation of
District Justices, and have agreed upon the
following facts and recommendations:
We find that, prior TO the Legislative
session of 1882, these officers were appointed
by the respective Governors, by and with the
consent of a majority of the Justices of the
Supreme Court. This plan of appointment
was generally satisfactory in its results, and
gave the country class of District Magls-
trates of fair integrity and capacity. But by
Chapter XVI. of the Session Laws OF 1857
this power of approval was withdrawn from
the Justices of the Supreme Court, and the
appointment of these Magistrates was vested
absolutely in the Governors of the different
Islands.
The evil effect of this change was soon OBJ
servable, and has ever since been manifest
in the lower intelligence of such sppointees,
while their independence of any supervisory
tribunal, in all matters pertaining to their
appointmept, and in many of the matters
PERTAINING To their tenure of Office, has rem
&Sred them, in many instances, unscrupu-
'ious. offensive, and positively dishonest in
the exercise of their magisterial functions.
To such an extent has this evil developed
that the system of so-called justice, as ad-
ministered in our inferior Courts, has become
national reproach.
Your committee therefore feel that
change in the methods of these appoint
rnents is imperative, in the interest OF an
honest and competent administration. IL is
also manifest to your committee that such
amendments should be approved by the
Supreme Court, whose information and dis
erection in the premises may always De
trusted But we think 1t unwlse that such
appointments should be vested In the Su-
nreme Court alone, and deem 1t entirely ap-
nropriate that the Cabinet should have
voice in such appointments. In all other
constitutional ponarchies, as your commit
tee believe. certainly in England ana her
colonies, all Judicial officers, including the
humbleSt magistrate. are dppOLutoO NALOOhy
Nv the Crown. or its representatives. In no
country, within the knowledge of your COM
nittee, does the system prevail OF IN any
formal manner consulting the superior courts
as 10 appointments TO the inferior bench.
A similar principle obtained with reg regard
70 Federal Courts of thee United States.
There Is we believe. no American Court
having any voice in the selection or approval
Of inferior judicial Officers. But the condi-
t;ons obtaining in Hawaii suggest TO your
Committee the propriety of concedlng 70 1ne
Supreme Court the power to veto improper
nominations to the District Bench. But IL
sLoald extend no farther than this, rs that
Tribunal should in no case be placed In the
position of dispenser of official favors.
The appointment of the District Ma9ls-
rates. in the opinion of your Committee,
should be placed in the hands OF oieeFs VINO mo
are directly responsible to the people lo1 w. .ne
exercise of that power. The meml ers OF me
Cabinet are such officers. and, as the direct
ssevants and representatives of the people 5
REPRESENTATIVES,, it seems fitting that they
should directly exercise this appointing
a.